Make and explore Freedom of Information requestsFollow this request
There are 4 people following this request
Act on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Meetings and correspondence between MoJ and Phorm in 2005
To Ministry of Justice by Phillip Main 5 August 2009
Correspondence between Min. of Justice and Prime MInister's Office concerning Phorm/121Media
To Ministry of Justice by Phillip Main 20 July 2009
Dates of meetings between MoJ and Phorm/121Media
To Ministry of Justice by Phillip Main 16 July 2009
Correspondence between Min. of Justice and Prime MInister's Office concerning Phorm/121Media
To Ministry of Justice by Phillip Main 5 June 2009
Correspondence between MoJ and ICO on Phorm/121Media
To Ministry of Justice by Phillip Main 11 July 2009
Copies of letters sent to BT and Phorm informing them of government letter to EU
To Ministry of Justice by Phillip Main 5 December 2009
Communication between MoJ and ICO regarding Phorm/121Media
To Ministry of Justice by Steve Hankin 17 July 2009
European Commission; First Stage of Infringement Proceeding
To Ministry of Justice by P. John 13 June 2009
Correspondence between MoJ and BERR/DBIS concerning Phorm/121Media
To Ministry of Justice by Phillip Main 11 July 2009
Correspondence between Min. of Justice and Home Office concerning phorm/121media
Phillip Main made this Freedom of Information request to Ministry of Justice
The request was refused by Ministry of Justice.
From: Phillip Main
5 June 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,
Please supply copies of all correspondence concerning
Phorm/121Media between yourselves and the Home Office within the
period 1st Jan 2006 to 5th June 2009
Yours faithfully,
Phillip Main
From: Data Access & Compliance Unit
Ministry of Justice
15 June 2009
Dear Mr Main,
Please find attached your acknowledgement to your Freedom of Information
request.
Yours sincerely
Hannah Law
(Sent on behalf of Gemma Hadjigeorge)
Data Access & Compliance Unit
Postal Point 6.25, Zone B
102 Petty France
London SW1H 9AJ
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
show quoted sections
From: Charnock, Ben
Ministry of Justice
3 July 2009
Dear Mr Main,
Please find attached a response to your Freedom of Information request of
5 June. This is sent on behalf of Kavita Goburdhun at the Ministry of
Justice.
Kind regards,
Ben
Ben Charnock
EA to Belinda Lewis
Head of Information Policy Division
102 Petty France
0203 334 4585
<<Respone to Phillip Main 22-06-2009.DOC>>
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the
addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not
permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be
intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when
deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read
at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when
composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
show quoted sections
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
From: Goburdhun, Kavita
Ministry of Justice
24 July 2009
<<Response to Philip Main and FOI request (3).DOC>> Dear Mr Main,
Please find attached a response to your recent FOI request.
Kavita Goburdhun
Information Policy
Ministry of Justice
6th Floor
102 Petty France
London SW1H 9AJ
Tel: 020 3334 3809
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
show quoted sections
Phillip Main left an annotation (27 July 2009)
Yes we have the information. No you cant see it
From: Phillip Main
29 July 2009
Dear Sir or Madam,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Ministry of Justice's
handling of my FOI request 'Correspondence between Min. of Justice
and Home Office concerning phorm/121media'. I am deeply concerned
at this government's attitude to requests for information on a
subject as important as this one.
I am bewildered as to why any correspondence between government
departments regarding a commercial company whose sole purpose was
to covertly intercept private communications should be treated in
this manner when it is the governments duty to protect the rights
and privacy of its citizens. This attitude makes it appear that
there is something to hide and is not in the best interests of the
clarity or openness of government that the Prime Minister espouses.
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/co...
Yours faithfully,
Phillip Main
From: Data Access & Compliance Unit
Ministry of Justice
29 July 2009
This is an Auto Reply from the Data Access & Compliance Unit.
Thank you for your e-mail.
If your message was a request for information please be advised that your
request is being dealt with and you will receive a written ackowledgement
shortly.
Data Access & Compliance Unit
Information Directorate
Ministry of Justice
6th Floor, Zone B, Postal Point 6.23
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ
Fax: 0203 334 2245
E-mail: [email address]
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the
addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not
permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all
copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
Internet e-mail is not a secure medium. Any reply to this message could be
intercepted and read by someone else. Please bear that in mind when
deciding whether to send material in response to this message by e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be
monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail
monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read
at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when
composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
show quoted sections
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.
From: Data Access & Compliance Unit
Ministry of Justice
4 August 2009
Dear Mr Main,
Please find attached your acknowledgement for your request for an
Internal Review.
Yours sincerely
Hannah Law
(Sent on behalf of Hannah Wright)
Data Access & Compliance Unit
Postal Point 6.25, Zone B
102 Petty France
London SW1H 9AJ
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
show quoted sections
From: Wright, Hannah
Ministry of Justice
11 September 2009
Dear Mr Main,
Please find attached a response to your internal review request.
Yours sincerely,
Hannah Wright
Ministry of Justice | Data Access & Compliance Unit | 0203 334 5249
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
This e-mail (and any attachment) is intended only for the attention of the addressee(s). Its unauthorised use, disclosure, storage or copying is not permitted. If you are not the intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by return e-mail.
This e-mail (whether you are the sender or the recipient) may be monitored, recorded and retained by the Ministry of Justice. E-mail monitoring / blocking software may be used, and e-mail content may be read at any time. You have a responsibility to ensure laws are not broken when composing or forwarding e-mails and their contents.
show quoted sections
more-than-my-Jobswerth left an annotation (12 September 2009)
"Arguments against disclosure:
It is in the publics best interest to have a policy that has been subject to full and thorough considerations and arguments. To disclose the information at this stage could impact on how the policy is developed, if policy-developers face scrutiny from parties that are less informed of all of the issues. Officials need to consider all issues and stake holders, and make a judgement on the direction of policy without public pressure.
In consideration of the above arguments I have established that it is in the publics interest that this information remains withheld.
"
its interesting that she says "if policy-developers face scrutiny from parties that are less informed of all of the issues."
if there were any case for this then she might have a point... however throughout all this Phorm business, it clear as day ,it has In fact Been the Consumers such as the FOI people sending these requests that are In fact the more Informed.
we are mearly looking for official corroboration of the FACTS we have Already uncovered, and in many cases the first people to actually informed her office of these facts.
these facts are sat there and while this information remains withheld it does Not chance the fact we already know and WILL be holding her and the department(s) responses for later evidence of potential collusion and or other charges....
Steven Thomlinson left an annotation (14 September 2009)
"I am sorry that, on this occasion [as with most occasions when you ask about the 121Media company or their subsequent name Phorm], I am unable [because I am following my orders] to provide you with the information you have requested. I hope that I have provided you with an adequate explanation as to why it has not been possible."
No, the explanation really is totally inadequate. It is possible but our secretive government is just "not open" about the issues surrounding Phorm/121Media/BT plc and the illegal tests of Webwise which has been designed purely to intercept the private communication between people, partly to generate profits for Kent Ertugrul, Norman Lamont et al.
Got to feel sorry for the shares investors who believed the contents of the "Buy Note" from that company Astair Securities (the one fined not so long ago for dodgey practices unrelated to Phorm...) http://wikileaks.org/wiki/UK_firm_Astair...
Coincidences? Adware company 121Media becomes Phorm. BT plc tests software without customer consent. Police say it's someone else's job to investigate the alleged law breaking. That someone else says no, it IS the job of the police after all. Police say, ah yes, ok it is a police matter, but not our force's task. Information Commissioner rings hands extensively. Some MPs don't understand and pass the buck. Other MPs do take it seriously and follow up. Lords and at least one Baroness pick over the detail and DO understand the issues, they challenge and government representatives ring their hands. Astair Securities helps Phorm raise millions in new share sales... only to see the share price collapse later. Phorm retreats from the UK market as respected websites and at least one banking instituation says they can keep their snooping off their website. Phorm launches Webwise Discover and there's little interest. Phorm goes off to South Korea and claims to be testing Webwise (now "QookSmartWeb") at KT (Korea Telecom) - but is there really a test, where is the evidence? BBC releases interesting discussion evidence in reply to an FOI request... The Beeb doesn't like Phorm's Webwise either. And Talk Talk retreats saying they won't be involved with Phorm in the future.
A year on nearly, and the Crown Prosecution Service has not made a decision to take BT plc to court for their interceptions of consumers' communication? Why is that? How complicated can it really be? Then there's the collusion alleged between the Home Office and Phorm (something like "Would your clients be comforted if we said...") - how odd is that? Why would they be so helpful to Phorm?
The EU is talking tough with the UK about our failure to implement laws to protect our citizens from the activities of Phorm and BT. WHY does that preclude the release of some of the communication which took place? We pay the wages of those people, so why is it secret? They only know what they know about Webwise BECAUSE of people like us who have not let it drop. That's why we won't accept their wall of silence and that's why people will pay when they are called to account for their actions in a court of law, eventually, some day, it must happen. Meanwhile, everyone remember who was publicly behind this, British Telecom (BT Retail, BT plc) and Phorm Webwise, followed by Virgin Media and TalkTalk who were also interested at the time in the idea, which says a lot about them and what they tink of their customers.
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Phillip Main left an annotation ( 3 July 2009)
"I have not yet reached a decision on the balance of the public interest in this case. As I need some more time to fully consider where the balance of the public interest lies in relation to the information you have requested, I am sorry that I will not be able to respond to your request in full within 20 working days."
Another department that cant/wont talk about Phorm
P.M.
Link to this